BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 93 of 2024.
Date of Institution : 15.03.2024
Date of Decision : 16.12.2024.
Dr. Ikjot Singh aged about 26 years son of Shri Avnish Singh, resident of 66, C-Block, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Deol Mobiles, Shiv Chowk, Circular Road, Sirsa through its owner.
2. OPPO Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1, Sector Ecotech-VII, Udyog Vihar Greater Noida (U.P.), 201306, through its Regional Manager/ Incharge.
3. OnePlus India Technology Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office, UB City 6th Floor, UB City 24, UB City, Vittal Maliya road, D’Souza Layout Ashok Nagar, Bengaluru, Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka, 560001, through its Manager/ Incharge.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Manbir Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.K. Soni, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite parties no.2 and 3 already exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (herein after referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant purchased one Plus 11 5G (8+128GB) Mobile from op no.1 on 17.03.2023 vide invoice no. 2136 dated 17.03.2023 for an amount of Rs.56,999/-. That soon after the purchase, it was noted that mobile sold by op no.1 manufactured by op no.2 was having manufacturing defect as same was having issues of camera, button, hanging and same has become useless. It is further averred that complainant approached the ops in this regard and sent various mail soon after the purchase up till date describing the problem faced by complainant in detail, but nothing has been done by ops with regard to replacement of mobile set despite the fact that same was within warranty period. The act and conduct of ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and they have adopted unfair trade practice towards complaint due to which he has suffered unnecessary harassment. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, op no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, suppression of true and material facts, estoppal, mis joinder and non joinder of parties and that op no.1 is only seller and used to sell the mobile of manufacturer/ company on the marginal basis in a sealed/ packed condition and only in the same condition marketed in the market, hence op no.1 is not responsible for the manufacturing of the mobile and only the manufacturer is liable. On merits, it is submitted that answering op supplied the set in intact/ packed condition without any kinds of tampering with the sealed box containing the mobile set. Moreover, the complainant did not raise any objection or complaint in this regard at the time of purchase of mobile because the seals of the box was opened by complainant and complainant himself broken out the seals of the box in order to check out the look and mobile set. Moreover, manufacturing company always mentions the guarantee/ warrantee conditions on the log book/ manual contained in box of mobile set which ought to go through by each customer and the manufacturer also mentioned the list of their authorized service centre, which are being run under the control of manufacturing company for providing time to time services to the customers and they also advised to the customers to get their complaint redressed from the authorized service centre, meaning thereby the dealers after selling out the mobile set on behalf of the company have no interference between the customers and service centre. It is further submitted that answering op never committed any default on its part. If the complainant would have approached to the answering op, then the answering op would have tried his best to redress the grievance of complainant if any through proper channel. It is wrong to say that complainant ever approached the answering op with any defect as complainant never approached to it. The op no.1 is doing his business on a nominal profit. The answering op has never given any guarantee/ assurance or warranty of mobile set to the complainant as same is not given by dealer. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Ops no.2 and 3 did not appear despite delivery of notices and as none appeared on behalf of ops no.2 and 3, therefore, ops no.2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.1 suffered a statement that written statement filed on behalf of op no.1 may be read as evidence.
7. We have heard learned counsel for complainant, learned counsel for op no.1 and have gone through the case file.
8. From the invoice Ex.C1, it is evident that on 17.03.2023 complainant had purchased mobile in question from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.56,999/- and said mobile is manufactured by op no.3. According to complainant within warranty period of one year, several defects of camera, capture button and its hanging developed in the mobile in question due to manufacturing defect in it but his grievances has not been redressed by any of the ops. The complainant has also placed on file copies of emails sent by complainant to op no.3 and also sent by op no.3 to the complainant dated 15.01.2024, 17.01.2024, 11.03.2024 Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and from the email sent by complainant to op no.3 it is evident that complainant reported the issues of camera function, hanging of mobile in question to the op no.3 but there is nothing on file to prove the fact that any of the ops ever actually tried to resolve the grievance of complainant and op no.3 has only given assurances to the complainant and despite notice ops no.2 and 3 failed to appear before this Commission and opted to be proceeded against exparte. It is proved on record that said mobile of complainant developed severe defects within warranty period which is only due to manufacturing defect in it and as such complainant is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.56,999/- i.e. price of the mobile in question from ops as ops have failed to redress the grievances of complainant within time despite the fact that complainant spent such huge amount for purchasing a new mobile.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties no.1 and 3 i.e. dealer and manufacturer of the mobile to make refund of the amount of Rs.56,999/- i.e. price of the mobile in question to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to receive the said amount of Rs.56,999/- from ops no.1 and 3 alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the ops no.1 and 3 to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. The complainant will hand over the mobile in question to op no.1 against proper receipt within time. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member President,
Dated: 16.12.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
